BASHIR AHMAD vs ZAHEERUD DIN and another
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an urban settlement case concerning the auction of a unit in a composite property. The petitioner's initial auction in 1965 was cancelled after he failed to pay the full earnest money. Subsequently, the respondent succeeded in a 1973 auction, which the petitioner challenged before settlement authorities after a delay of nearly eight years. Although the petitioner initially succeeded before the settlement authority, the High Court restored the respondent's auction purchase, citing the petitioner's negligence, belated challenge, and the respondent's status as a bona fide purchaser. The core legal question involves whether discretionary relief under constitutional jurisdiction ought to be granted to a party guilty of prolonged silence and laches. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that leave to appeal must be refused because the petitioner remained silent for eight years, declining to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in such circumstances. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will decline to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favor of a party who has remained silent and delayed challenging an adverse administrative action for an unreasonable period.
- Will the Supreme Court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favor of a petitioner who remained silent for eight years before challenging an administrative auction?
- Does an unexplained delay of nearly eight years in challenging an auction purchase bar a party from obtaining relief in constitutional and discretionary jurisdictions?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an urban settlement case relating to the auction of a unit in a composite property. The petitioner was successful in one auction but having failed to pay the full earnest money, the auction in his favour was cancelled in 1965. In a subsequent auction in 1973, the respondent succeeded. This was challenged by the petitioner on the basis of certain points relatable to his own purchase and order of cancellation thereof and succeeded before the settlement authority.
2. The High Court, however, on respondents' constitutional petition, restored his auction pruchase on various grounds including petitioner's A negligence, belated challenge in the first round appeal (after nearly eight years) and the respondent being a bona fide purchaser.
3. ' Learned counsel has tried to meet all these points with reference to purely legal position. The petitioner, as respondent might have succeeded in the High Court on these consideration; but here he is seeking relief in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. We on account of silence of the petitioner for eight years would not exercise the same. Leave accordingly is refused.